Do You REALLY Know? Nope.

[Snow]

Snow, if many members admitted in a post-cartesian world that they believed rather than knew, would that not put them at a disadvantage in terms of Church advancement or even getting a Celestial Helpmeet at BYU? Given those factors, wouldn't it be easier to run with the herd and leave the truth of these espistemological problems to the philosophies of Men?

Just trying to help clarify your position...

Ah - but don't we, we "internet" seekers not run with the herd? Don't we try to get to the bottom of it all while others merely go with the flow?

[Just_A_Guy]

That's an excellent illustration of the point:

One one hand there is the almighty God, all-powerful, and all-knowing and on the other hand there is a slave girl who thinks Peter might have been a friend of Jesus.

Had Peter known that God was real and was was right there, observing him and his every word, he wouldn't have lied to the slave girl and bystander. Peter had faith - believed that Jesus was the Christ but that's what it was - belief, not knowledge. And remember, Peter was an apostle, and knew Jesus personally and yet his faith did not equate to knowledge that impacted his behavior. How much less than Peter's faith is the average member's belief? A lot.

Snow, I think we need to bear in mind that at the time of Peter's denial he had already a) seen Jesus transfigured, b) seen the translated Elijah ministering to Him, c) seen the translated Moses ministering to Him, and d) heard the voice of God the Father attesting to His divinity.

I know my wife exists. I know she doesn't like it when I cuss. But--wonder of wonders--every now and again, I cuss in front of her.

Do I therefore not really "know" that my wife exists? Or is it possible for me to "know" something without fully internalizing all of the obligations that that knowledge gives me?

Edited August 31, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Snow]

Snow, I think we need to bear in mind that at the time of Peter's denial he had already a) seen Jesus transfigured, b) seen the translated Elijah ministering to Him, c) seen the translated Moses ministering to Him, and d) heard the voice of God the Father attesting to His divinity.

I know my wife exists. I know she doesn't like it when I cuss. But--wonder of wonders--every now and again, I cuss in front of her.

Do I therefore not really "know" that my wife exists? Or is it possible for me to "know" something without fully internalizing all of the obligations that that knowledge gives me?

Let's be realistic. The author of Luke and Matthew got their account from Mark. Mark was not an eyewitness. Mark didn't even get his account 2nd hand. He was really a 4th or 5th remove from the events he described. He wasn't a Jew and not very familiar with Palestine.

You can't prove facts using dogma.

[Just_A_Guy]

Your point being . . . that the events on the Mount of Transfiguration as relayed by Matthew never happened at all?

Why, then, do you take the story of Peter's denial at face value?

[Snow]

Your point being . . . that the events on the Mount of Transfiguration as relayed by Matthew never happened at all?

No - of course not. No one knows whether it happened or not. Matthew got it from Mark. Mark was not an intimate of Jesus, or even and intimate of the intimates of Jesus. It's all dogma.

Why, then, do you take the story of Peter's denial at face value?

I don't.

[Misshalfway]

My job as a progressing child of God and disciple of Christ is to get my knowledge and my behavior on the same page. The cool part about all of this is that revelation happens, even the kind that verifies whether or not Moses saw God, and that repentance is always an open invitation.

I can't really worry about why Oliver blew it one day or if that makes him a class A hypocrite. All I can do is to constantly examine my behavior and keep myself in tune with the teaching influence of the Spirit and then trust the process. If I find myself blowing it when no one is watching or when I find myself in a stressful state, then I need to look at myself and make adjustments that are in accordance with God's will. His Spirit tells me when I blow it. It also shows me scriptural and live examples of how He wants my life to look.

I find this discussion interesting, but kinda beside the point of the coming to Christ process.

[bytor2112]

Reminds me of a song:

If the Savior stood beside me, would I do the things I do?

Would I think of His commandments and try harder to be true?

Would I follow His example? Would I live more righteously,

If I could see the Savior standing nigh, watching over me?

If the Savior stood beside me, would I say the things I say?

Would my words be true and kind if He were never far away?

Would I try to share the gospel? Would I speak more reverently

If I could see the Savior standing nigh, watching over me?

If the Savior stood beside me, would my thoughts be clean and pure?

Would His presence give me strength and hope, and courage to endure?

Would His counsel guide my actions? Would I choose more worthily

If I could see the Savior standing nigh, watching over me?

He is always near me, though I do not see Him there

And because He loves me dearly, I am in His watchful care

So I'll be the kind of person that I know I'd like to be

If I could see the Savior standing nigh, watching over me.

[Just_A_Guy]

No - of course not. No one knows whether it happened or not. Matthew got it from Mark. Mark was not an intimate of Jesus, or even and intimate of the intimates of Jesus. It's all dogma.

Thanks for the clarification. But I must confess myself a little confused as to why you dismissed my sum-up of Matthew's account of events on the Mount of Transfiguration with a call to be "realistic", if you weren't trying to at least hint that it didn't happen (or didn't happen to Peter, or didn't happen prior to Peter's alleged denial, etc).

Why, then, do you take the story of Peter's denial at face value?

I don't.

Why, then, did you use the story to support the assertion that Peter didn't really have "knowledge" in this post?

[Gatorman]

Snow - Based on the things you have written here and in other posts, I am left to conclude the following:

1 - You don't know the bible the is true, because it is dogma and you can not prove what is written in it. You believe that 'dogma' is a bad thing, yet use it in the same way the rest of us use faith.

2 - You don't know Christ is real and living, because you can't prove it.

3 - You don't know Heavenly Father is real, because you can't prove it.

4 - Belief in things you can't prove is dogmatic and not real.

As such, you do not have a testimony? How can you have a testimony if it is based on dogma and things you can't prove, when that is not a way to know?

[john doe]

I'm not going to pretend to speak for Snow, but I'm guessing you're off base with those conclusions.

[Gatorman]

I'm not going to pretend to speak for Snow, but I'm guessing you're off base with those conclusions.

I would hope you are right. Just as Snow's suppositions, accusations, and positions are off base. He just doesn't understand how we can know, just as it is not possible for me to believe that he believes. Doesn't change the facts for either of us. And, I am sure Snow will come after me, guns blazing, attempting to prove how stupid, foolish, or unintelligent I am. In reality, his posts come across as if his intention is to tear down the faith others have. Then, he hides behind the excuse that if his comments can tear down their faith, it was not strong to begin with. I 'know' that such actions would be against the counsel of the church and its leaders. So, I hope that it is not true. I hope that Snow will realize that this is the arrogance his posts come across with and that others are affected by his posts. But, I am not his judge. I just pity him and his posts and pray that he does not believe as he posts, because such beliefs, according to the LDS faith, will find him with a lot to explain.

[Snow]

Thanks for the clarification. But I must confess myself a little confused as to why you dismissed my sum-up of Matthew's account of events on the Mount of Transfiguration with a call to be "realistic", if you weren't trying to at least hint that it didn't happen (or didn't happen to Peter, or didn't happen prior to Peter's alleged denial, etc).

I dismiss it, not on religious or theological or testimonial grounds, but rather as the basis to argue the point addressed in this thread. You can't prove facts (knowledge) by calling up dogma.

Why, then, did you use the story to support the assertion that Peter didn't really have "knowledge" in this post?

It's an illustration of the principle.

[Snow]

Snow - Based on the things you have written here and in other posts, I am left to conclude the following:

1 - You don't know the bible the is true, because it is dogma and you can not prove what is written in it.

That's the definition of dogma. Dogma is that which is believed or asserted that unproved or unprovable. The Bible's central claims are BY DEFINITION, dogma. That's a fact.

You believe that 'dogma' is a bad thing, yet use it in the same way the rest of us use faith.

That's absurd and untrue. Dogma is not bad. The entire gospel and my religious belief system is built on dogma.

2 - You don't know Christ is real and living, because you can't prove it.

Neither can you for that matter and so you don't know he is real either but we both believe it.

3 - You don't know Heavenly Father is real, because you can't prove it.

Ditto

4 - Belief in things you can't prove is dogmatic and not real.

Absurd and untrue. Being dogmatic does not make things unreal.

As such, you do not have a testimony? How can you have a testimony if it is based on dogma and things you can't prove, when that is not a way to know?

Chuckle - what do you think a testimony is? It is "A public declaration regarding a religious experience." My religious experiences, like yours, are based on faith.

[BenRaines]

As I understand the point one can have faith, believe and trust that these things are true. There are few who can come to a complete knowledge. Knowledge comes from seeing to the point of knowing. I can't say for sure that even seeing without touching, conversing, etc. could be considered knowledge.

I believe, not know, that many who profess to know are repeating what they have heard for years and feel that they must know to be a part of the rest.

I have had witnesses. There are many things I no longer doubt that it has taken a lifetime to cultivate. I believe I know by the witnesses given but I can't say I know like I live and breathe.

Ben Raines

[Snow]

I would hope you are right. Just as Snow's suppositions, accusations, and positions are off base. He just doesn't understand how we can know, just as it is not possible for me to believe that he believes. Doesn't change the facts for either of us. And, I am sure Snow will come after me, guns blazing, attempting to prove how stupid, foolish, or unintelligent I am. In reality, his posts come across as if his intention is to tear down the faith others have. Then, he hides behind the excuse that if his comments can tear down their faith, it was not strong to begin with. I 'know' that such actions would be against the counsel of the church and its leaders. So, I hope that it is not true. I hope that Snow will realize that this is the arrogance his posts come across with and that others are affected by his posts. But, I am not his judge. I just pity him and his posts and pray that he does not believe as he posts, because such beliefs, according to the LDS faith, will find him with a lot to explain.

Let's try and focus Gatorman. I can see you desperately want to turn this into a referendum on me, but if you want to talk about me, open up your own thread.

This all is easily enough settled. Prove that you know and I'll gladly acknowledge that I am mistaken.

Oh - and thanks for your pity G-man, it's always appreciated.

[Snow]

I have had witnesses. There are many things I no longer doubt that it has taken a lifetime to cultivate. I believe I know by the witnesses given but I can't say I know like I live and breathe.

Ben Raines

Now that's very insightful and very well said.

[BenRaines]

Lets keep this about the topic folks. No personal attacks.

Ben Raines

[Gatorman]

Snow - You are wrong. Let me say it again, I know the gospel is true. I know Christ is real and that he lives. I know my Heavenly Father is real. Nothing you say, no matter your lack of understanding the faith excercised by members of our church or any church, your belief in the need for proof, or any other argument will make those statements any less true. I KNOW it.

So, you and I have reached a point that we will have to agree to disagree. I can not understand your position. It is heretical to me. You can not understand my position. It is misguided, foolish, stupid, or whatever you believe. But, the fact is, you are wrong in regards to this, because, I do know. It was proven to me through study, through prayer, through faith, and through the Holy Spirit. Evidence of. Proof of. Facts about. You have no evidence or proof that would be able to dispute this. End of story. End of discussion.

[Gatorman]

Lets keep this about the topic folks. No personal attacks.

Ben Raines

Agreed. I have not attempted to attack Snow. I have simply posted the understanding his posts give to those of us who know. But, I said it in my first post, there are 10 types of people. Those who understand and those who don't.

[Honorentheos]

It's a good topic you have started, Snow. Thanks!

It reminded me immediately of the quote from William James - "Religion is a monumental chapter in the history of human egotism."

I think that it is interesting that people get up in arms when someone suggests that it is ok to say, "i believe such-and-such" rather than "I know".

But, my friend Moksha in his quiet wisdom reminded me why - a weather man who doesn't know for sure if it will rain won't have a job. So he hedges his bets using probabilities but couches it in the language of knowledge to walk the thin line. Lucky for most weathermen/women today we have chaos theory working for them. So good point Moksha, the cultural context in this case has to place a higher value on certitude and claimed knowledge that predisposes the non-knowledgeable individual to be at a disadvantage if they are simply honest.

Take Snow here for example. I, as an agnostic, am at liberty to claim lack of knowledge because it fits the label I use to describe my religious belief. I get a few interesting points and scriptures shown me that are supposed to make the case and am left to my own ignorance/agency to fend for my eternal destiny as I may. Snow, as a member of the LDS community makes an honest point and is not as fortunate. Snow's understanding is considered inferior though unlike me his/her position is probably the very similar to other members in the broad sense. Actually, based on his/her understanding of the New Testament I think Snow is probably more knowledgeable than most and is using this to develop a better understanding of how it all fits together. And that is interesting.

I would offer the thought that no one seems to be arguing against the existence of God, but rather that it's ok to say, "I believe". And why is that so bad?

When I was a child, I thought as a child. If one were to develop a scale of belief with 1 being absolute knowledge that something was not true and 10 being absolute knowledge that something was true with a 5 being a state of not leaning either way, most things in my life as a child fell very close to the 1's and 10's. Most children's do.

But when I became a man, I put away childish things.

[Gatorman]

This all is easily enough settled. Prove that you know and I'll gladly acknowledge that I am mistaken.

Oh - and thanks for your pity G-man, it's always appreciated.

I know you are mistaken. I don't have a need to prove it, because I experience it. Whether or not you understand or believe it is immaterial. You and your beliefs are unimportant in my world. I have the proof I require. You have chosen to dismiss that type of proof. That is not for me to worry about.

[Gatorman]

There is nothing wrong with saying 'I believe'. I have no issue with that side of Snow's comments. Nor would I ever question anyone who said that. Instead, Snow's post appears meant to suggest that we can not know. He is deciding for all of us that it is impossible to have the knowledge that is told us that we can have. Or, suggesting that we don't have the necessary witnesses to know. But, the fact is, just because he, or anyone else, does not believe it or understand it, does not change the fact that I know. And, if he doesn't get it, my trying to prove it would prove fruitless. I would be tilting at windmills, as it were.

Snow does think and study a bit. I do not fault study by people. I fault when they attempt to use that study to make themselves superior and to suggest that everyone else is wrong. I believe that most of the people on these forums know that the Gospel is true. But, there is no evidence of it that would appear to allow some to have such knowledge. Instead, they are left with belief only. I congratulate them on their belief and applaud that they live by it. But, anyones lack of knowledge does not change that I know it is true. That is my point.

As a scriptural example, Nephi saw and knew. His brothers saw and knew. Yet, they still did not follow. But, they did not know it all. So, they believed that Nephi and his father were trying to lead them astray. Just because they did not know and they believed that Nephi and Lehi were whacked out, does not change the fact that Nephi and Lehi knew. Just because someone else does not understand how I know or that I know, does not change the fact that I know.

It's a good topic you have started, Snow. Thanks!

It reminded me immediately of the quote from William James - "Religion is a monumental chapter in the history of human egotism."

I think that it is interesting that people get up in arms when someone suggests that it is ok to say, "i believe such-and-such" rather than "I know".

But, my friend Moksha in his quiet wisdom reminded me why - a weather man who doesn't know for sure if it will rain won't have a job. So he hedges his bets using probabilities but couches it in the language of knowledge to walk the thin line. Lucky for most weathermen/women today we have chaos theory working for them. So good point Moksha, the cultural context in this case has to place a higher value on certitude and claimed knowledge that predisposes the non-knowledgeable individual to be at a disadvantage if they are simply honest.

Take Snow here for example. I, as an agnostic, am at liberty to claim lack of knowledge because it fits the label I use to describe my religious belief. I get a few interesting points and scriptures shown me that are supposed to make the case and am left to my own ignorance/agency to fend for my eternal destiny as I may. Snow, as a member of the LDS community makes an honest point and is not as fortunate. Snow's understanding is considered inferior though unlike me his/her position is probably the very similar to other members in the broad sense. Actually, based on his/her understanding of the New Testament I think Snow is probably more knowledgeable than most and is using this to develop a better understanding of how it all fits together. And that is interesting.

I would offer the thought that no one seems to be arguing against the existence of God, but rather that it's ok to say, "I believe". And why is that so bad?

When I was a child, I thought as a child. If one were to develop a scale of belief with 1 being absolute knowledge that something was not true and 10 being absolute knowledge that something was true with a 5 being a state of not leaning either way, most things in my life as a child fell very close to the 1's and 10's. Most children's do.

But when I became a man, I put away childish things.

[Honorentheos]

I know you are mistaken. I don't have a need to prove it, because I experience it. ...I have the proof I require. You have chosen to dismiss that type of proof. That is not for me to worry about.

This is all very true. Sadly so, but true.

One could ask what it is about personal experience that can fit the definition of objective truth, but I get the feeling this is not a welcome point of discussion on this topic.

Yet, if one can not say that this proof is objectively verifiable but must be subjectively achieved through experience, is it a good basis to claim, "I know..."?

I am still interested in why so many must "KNOW!!!!" when there does not seem to be any really difference in saying, "I believe".

The things I know are very, very few. I have learned in life to find the ability to act on belief as has been suggested to me through the Alma 32 example. I think that is a nice way of putting it. It's this jump to how small bits of experiential "knowledge" lead to claims of knowledge on universal truths.

I don't think this is a very mature way of dealing with the world as a whole. If it is a matter of semantics and a cultural thing internal to the LDS faith, so be it. But if one can not differentiate between this type of thinking internal to faith and how one interacts with one's fellow man I think this becomes a larger issue.

[Snow]

While ya'll are chewing on what's been written so far, let's also try a different tact...

Certainly you are aware that there are Catholics and Evangelicals and Muslims who also KNOW that they and their version of theology are correct and true. They know just as undoubtedly and certainly and absolutely as do Mormons...

CHALLENGE to all who claim that they "KNOW:"

Please explain objectively and non-dogmatically why the Catholics and Evangelicals and Muslims sorely mistaken in their "knowledge" and you are not.

[Snow]

So, you and I have reached a point that we will have to agree to disagree. I can not understand your position. It is heretical to me. You can not understand my position. It is misguided, foolish, stupid, or whatever you believe. But, the fact is, you are wrong in regards to this, because, I do know. It was proven to me through study, through prayer, through faith, and through the Holy Spirit. Evidence of. Proof of. Facts about. You have no evidence or proof that would be able to dispute this. End of story. End of discussion.

I don't think that you understand the word heretical. There is nothing about my position that prohibits me from holding a temple recommend or disqualifies me from the celestial kingdom.

By the way - calling me or my positions stupid and foolish is, well, you know... about the best argument you have to support your position. Do you have any more substantial proof?